Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik

Deutsche Sprache in Gegenwart und Geschichte

Ed. by Ágel, Vilmos / Feilke, Helmuth / Linke, Angelika / Lüdeling, Anke / Tophinke, Doris

CiteScore 2018: 0.30

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.169
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.571

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 44, Issue 3


Partnerorientierung zwischen Realität und Imagination: Anmerkungen zu einem zentralen Konzept der Dialogtheorie

Other-Orientation between Reality and Imagination: Remarks on a Central Concept of Dialogue Theory

Prof. Dr. Arnulf Deppermann / PD Dr. Axel Schmidt
Published Online: 2016-12-06 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl-2016-0021


This paper attempts a critique of the notion of ‘dialogue’ in dialogue theory as espoused by Linell, Markova, and others building on Bakhtin’s writings. According to them, human communication, culture, language, and even cognition are dialogical in nature. This implies that these domains work by principles of other-orientation and interaction.

In our paper, we reject accepting other-orientation as an a priori condition of every semiotic action. Instead, we claim that in order to be an empirically useful concept for the social sciences, it must be shown if and how observable action is other-oriented. This leads us to the following questions: how can we methodically account for other-orientation of semiotic action? Does other-orientation always imply interaction? Is every human expression oriented towards others? How does the other, as s/he is represented in semiotic action, relate to the properties which the other can be seen to exhibit as indexed by their observable behavior?

We study these questions by asking how the orientation towards others becomes evident in different forms of communication. For this concern, we introduce ‘recipient design’, ‘positioning’ and ‘intersubjectivity’ as concepts which allow us to inquire how semiotic action both takes the other into account and, reflexively, shapes him/her as an addressee having certain properties. We then specifically focus on actions and situations in which other-orientation is particularly problematic, such as interactions with children, animals, machines, or communication with unknown recipients via mass media.

These borderline cases are scrutinized in order to delineate both limits and constitutive properties of other-orientation. We show that there are varieties of meaningful actions which do not exhibit an orientation towards the other, which do not rest on (the possibility of) interaction with the other or which even disregard what their producer can be taken to know about the other. Available knowledge about the other may be ignored in order to reach interactional goals, e. g. in strategical interactions or for concerns of socialization. If semiotic action is other-orientated, its design depends on how the other is available to and matters for their producer. Other-orientation may build on shared biographical experiences with the other, knowledge about the other as an individual and close attention to their situated conduct. However, other-orientation may also rest on (stereo-)typification with respect to institutional roles or group membership. In any case, others as they are represented in semiotic action can never be just others-as-such, but only others-as-perceived-by-the-actor.

We conclude that the strong emphasis which dialogue theories put on other-orientation obscures that other-orientation is neither universal in semiotic action, that it must be distinguished from an interactive relationship, and that the ways in which the other figures in semiotic actions is not homogeneous in any of its most general properties. Instead, there is a huge variation in the ways in which the other can be taken into account. Therefore close scrutiny of how the other precisely figures in a certain kind of semiotic action is needed in order to lend the concept of ‘other-orientation’ empirical substance and a definite sense.


  • Ayaß, Ruth (2001): Inszenierung von Spontanität im Fernsehen. In Sutter, T./Charlton, M. (Hg.): Massenkommunikation, Interaktion und soziales Handeln. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. S. 234–257.Google Scholar

  • Bakhtin, Mikhail M. (1986): The problem of speech genres. In: ders.: Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: U Texas P. S. 60–102.Google Scholar

  • Bakhtin, Michail M. (2005): Die Ästhetik des Wortes. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

  • Bendel, Sylvia (2007): Sprachliche Individualität in der Institution. Telefongespräche in der Bank und ihre individuelle Gestaltung. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar

  • Berg, Stefan (2014): Beten mit Luhmann. In: Hermeneutische Blätter 2/2014, S. 206–222.Google Scholar

  • Bergmann, Jörg R. (1985): Flüchtigkeit und methodische Fixierung sozialer Wirklichkeit: Aufzeichnungen als Daten der interpretativen Soziologie. In: Bonß, W./Hartmann, H. (Hg.): Entzauberte Wissenschaft (Sonderband 3 der Zeitschrift „Soziale Welt“). Göttingen: Schwarz. S. 299–320.Google Scholar

  • Bouissac, Paul (1990): Incidents, accidents, failures. The Representation of negative experience in public entertainment. In: Riggins, S. H. (Hg.): Beyond Goffman: studies on communication, institution, and social interaction. Berlin [u. a.]: de Gruyter. S. 409–444.Google Scholar

  • Brennan, Susan E./Clark, Herbert H. (1996): Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22, S. 1482–1493.Google Scholar

  • Brennan, Susan E./Galati, Alexia/Kuhlen, Anna (2010): Two minds, one dialog: Coordinating speaking and understanding. In: Ross, B. H. (Ed.): The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 53. Burlington: Academic. S. 301–344.Google Scholar

  • Brock, Alexander (2004): Blackadder, Monty Python und Red Dwarf – eine linguistische Untersuchung britischer Fernsehkomödien. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar

  • Broth, Mathias (2011): The theater performance as interaction between actors and their audience. In: Nottingham French Studies, 50, 2, S. 113–133.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bruner, Jerome S. (2002): Wie das Kind sprechen lernt. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar

  • Buber, Martin (2008): Ich und Du. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H. (1996): Communities, commonalities, and communication. In Gumperz: J. J./Levinson, S. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: CUP. S. 324–355.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H./Schaefer, Edward F. (1989): Contributing to discourse. In: Cognitive Science 13, S. 259–294.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H./Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna (1986): Referring as a collaborative process. In: Cognition, 22, S. 1–39.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H./Marshall, Catherine R. (1981): Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In: Joshi, A./Weber, B. H./Sag, I. A. (eds.): Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: CUP. S. 10–63.Google Scholar

  • Clayman, Steven E. (1993): Booing: The anatomy of a disaffiliate response. In: American Sociological Review, 58, 1, S. 110–130.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clayman, Steven/Heritage, John (2002): The news interview: journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Deppermann, Arnulf (2008): Verstehen im Gespräch. In: Kämper, H./Eichinger, L. M. (Hg.): Sprache – Kognition – Kultur. Sprache zwischen mentaler Struktur und kultureller Prägung. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. S. 225–261.Google Scholar

  • Deppermann, Arnulf (2015): Positioning. In: De Fina, A./Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.): Handbook of Narrative Analysis. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. S. 369–387.Google Scholar

  • Deppermann, Arnulf (2015a): When recipient design fails: Egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity. In: Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 16, S. 63–101.Google Scholar

  • Deppermann, Arnulf/Blühdorn, Hardarik (2013): Negation als Verfahren des Adressatenzuschnitts: Verstehenssteuerung durch Interpretationsrestriktionen. In: Deutsche Sprache 41, 1, S. 6–30.Google Scholar

  • Deppermann, Arnulf/Schmitt, Reinhold (2009): „damit sie mich verstehen“: Genese, Verfahren und recipient design einer narrativen Performance. In: Buss, Mareike/Habscheid, Stephan/Jautz, Sabine/Liedtke, Frank/Schneider, Jan-Georg (Hrsg.): Theatralität des sprachlichen Handelns. München: Fink. S. 79–112.Google Scholar

  • Dieckmann, Walter (1985): „Wie redet man zum Fenster hinaus“? In Sucharowski, W. (Hg.): Gesprächsforschung im Vergleich – Analysen zur Bonner Runde nach der Hessenwahl 1982. Tübingen: Niemeyer. S. 54–76.Google Scholar

  • Diesing, Molly/McConnell-Ginet, Sally (2012): How to Do Things with Wands and Words: The Pragmatics of Magic. Verfügbar unter: http://linguistics.cornell.edu/people/upload/DiesingMcCG.pdf.Google Scholar

  • Du Bois, John W. (1986): Self-Evidence and Ritual Speech. In: Chafe, W. L./Nichols, J. (eds.): Evidentiality. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. S. 313–336.Google Scholar

  • Ebeling, Gerhard (2012): Dogmatik des christlichen Glaubens. Band I: Prolegomena. 1. Teil: Der Glaube an Gott den Schöpfer der Welt. 4. Aufl. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar

  • Ehlich, Konrad (1985): The Language of Pain. In: Theoretical Medicine, 6, S. 177–187.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fischer, Kerstin (i. Dr.): Recipient design and register. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Foppa, Klaus (1990): Topical progression and intention. In: Marková, I./Foppa, K. (Hg.): The dynamics of dialogue. New York [u. a.]: Harvester Wheatsheaf. S. 178–200.Google Scholar

  • Fritz, Gerd/Hundsnurscher, Franz (Hg.) (1994): Handbuch der Dialoganalyse. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Giles, Howard/Coupland, Niklas (1991): Language: Contexts and Consequences. Milton Keynes: Open University.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving (1971a): Interaktionsrituale. Über Verhalten in direkter Kommunikation. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving (1971b): Verhalten in sozialen Situationen. Strukturen und Regeln der Interaktion im öffentlichen Raum. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving (1977): Rahmen-Analyse. Ein Versuch über die Organisation von Alltagserfahrung. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving (1981a): Strategische Interaktion. München: Hanser.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving (1981b): Response Cries. In: Ders. (Hg.): Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. S. 78–122.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving (1981c): Footing. In: Ders. (Hg.): Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. S. 124–159.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving (1981d): Radio Talk. In: Ders.: Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. S. 197–330.Google Scholar

  • Goldin-Meadow, Susan (2003): Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar

  • Goodwin, Charles (1981): Conversational organization. New York: Academic.Google Scholar

  • Goodwin, Charles (2016): Cooperative action. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Goodwin, Charles/Goodwin, Marjorie H. (2004): Participation. In: Duranti, A. (ed.): A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. S. 222–244.Google Scholar

  • Graumann, Carl F. (1995): Commonality, mutuality, reciprocity: A conceptual introduction. In Marková, I./Graumann, C. F./Foppa, K. (Hg.): Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. S. 1–24.Google Scholar

  • Habscheid, Stephan (2011): Germanistik im Call Center? Eine praxistheoretische Positionierung der Angewandten Sprachwissenschaft und exemplarische Untersuchungen zur Rationalisierung von Dienstleistungsgesprächen. In: Bonner, W./Reuther, E. (Hg.): Umbrüche in der Germanistik. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang. S. 95–114.Google Scholar

  • Hahn, Alois (1983): Konsensfiktionen in Kleingruppen. In: Neidhardt, F. (Hg.): Gruppensoziologie. Sonderband 25 d. KZfSS. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. S. 210–232.Google Scholar

  • Hahn, Alois (1988): Kann der Körper ehrlich sein? In: Gumbrecht, H. U./Pfeiffer, K. L. (Hg.): Materialität der Kommunikation. Frankfurt a. M. S. 666–679.Google Scholar

  • Hahn, Alois (2002): Absichtliche Unabsichtlichkeit. In: Sozialer Sinn, 3, S. 37–58.Google Scholar

  • Hanks, William (1996): Exorcism and the description of participant roles. In: Silverstein, M./Urban, G. (eds.): Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago: UCP. S. 160–220.Google Scholar

  • Hausendorf, Heiko (2001): Warum wir im Fernsehen so häufig begrüßt und angeredet werden. Eine exemplarische Studie am Beispiel der Sendung mit der Maus. In: Sutter, T./Charlton, M. (Hg.): Massenkommunikation, Interaktion und soziales Handeln. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. S. 185–213.Google Scholar

  • Hausendorf, Heiko (2003): Deixis and speech situation revisited: the mechanism of perceived perception. In: Lenz, F. (Hg.): Deictic conceptualisation of space, time and person. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. S. 249–269.Google Scholar

  • Heath, Christian (2002): Demonstrative suffering: the gestural (re)embodiment of symptoms. In: Journal of Communication 52, 3, S. 597–617.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heritage, John (1984): Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John/Greatbatch, David (1986): Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences. In: American Journal of Sociology, 92, S. 110–157.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Holly, Werner (1979): Imagearbeit in Gesprächen. Zur linguistischen Beschreibung des Beziehungsaspektes. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Holquist, Michael (1986): Dialogism. Bakhtin and his world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Horton, Donald/Wohl, Richard R. (1956): Mass Communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. In: Psychiatry, 19, S. 215–229.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Horton, William S. (2008): A memory-based approach to common ground and audience design. In: Kecskes, I./Mey, J. (eds.): Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. S. 189–222.Google Scholar

  • Huneke, Hans-Werner (2004): Sprechen zu Tieren. Formen und Funktionen tiergerichteten Sprechens. München: iudicium.Google Scholar

  • Husserl, Edmund (1929): Cartesianische Meditationen. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar

  • Hutchby, Ian (2006): Media talk. Maidenhead: Open Univ. Press.Google Scholar

  • Isaacs, Ellen A./Clark, Herbert H. (1987): References in conversations between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 1, S. 26–37.Google Scholar

  • Jayyusi, Lena (1984): Categorization and the moral order. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

  • Jefferson, Gail (2010): Sometimes a frog in your throat is just a frog in your throat: Gutturals as (sometimes) laughter-implicative. In: Journal of Pragmatics, 42, S. 1476–1484.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kallmeyer, Werner (1977). Verständigungsprobleme in Alltagsgesprächen. Zur Identifizierung von Sachverhalten und Handlungszusammenhängen. In: Der Deutschunterricht, 29, 6, S. 52–69.Google Scholar

  • Kendon, Adam (2004): Gesture: visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar

  • Keysar, Boaz (2007). Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. In: Intercultural Pragmatics 4, S. 71–84.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Keysar, Boaz (2008): Egocentric processes in communication and miscommunication. In: Kecskes, I./Mey, J. (eds.): Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. S. 277–296.Google Scholar

  • Kita, Sotaro (2000): How representational gestures help speaking. In: McNeill, D. (ed.) Language and Gesture. Cambridge: CUP. S. 162–185.Google Scholar

  • Klug, Daniel/Schmidt, Axel (2014): Körper(-Darstellungen) im Reality-TV – Herstellung von Wirklichkeit im und über das Fernsehen hinaus. In: Sozialer Sinn, 15, 1, S. 77–107.Google Scholar

  • Knoblauch, Hubert (2005): Kulturkörper. Die Bedeutung des Körpers in der sozialkonstruktivistischen Wissenssoziologie. In: Schroer, M. (Hg.): Soziologie des Körpers. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. S. 92–113.Google Scholar

  • Kühn, Peter (1995): Mehrfachadressierung. Untersuchungen zur adressatenspezifischen Polyvalenz sprachlichen Handelns. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. (1988): Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman's concepts of participation. In: Drew, P./Wotton, A. (Hg.): Erving Goffman. Exploring the interactional order. Cambridge: Polity Press. S. 161–227.Google Scholar

  • Lin, Shuhong/Keysar, Boaz/Epley, Nicholas (2010): Reflexively mindblind: Using theory of mind to interpret behavior requires effortful attention. In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46, S. 551–556.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Linell, Per (1998): Approaching dialogue: talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Linell, Per (2003): What is dialogism? Aspects and elements of a dialogical approach to language, communication and cognition. Lecture first presented at Växjö University, October 2000 (version: 2003-02-26). Online -Ressource: http://cspeech.ucd.ie/Fred/docs/Linell.pdf.Google Scholar

  • Linell, Per (2009): Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.Google Scholar

  • Linell, Per (2010): With Respect to Bakhtin: Some trends in contemporary dialogical theories. In: Junefelt, K./Nordin, P. (Hg.): Proceedings from the Second International Interdisciplinary Conference on Perspectives and Limits of Dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin, Stockholm University, June 3–5, 2009 (e-publication). S. 18–32.Google Scholar

  • Linell, Per/Marková, Ivana (1993). Acts in discourse: From monological speech acts to dialogical inter-acts. In: Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 23, S. 173–195.Google Scholar

  • Lorenzer, Alfred (1973): Über den Gegenstand der Psychoanalyse oder: Sprache und Interaktion. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

  • Lucius-Hoene, Gabriele/Deppermann, Arnulf (2000): Narrative identity empiricized – A dialogical and positioning approach to autobiographical research interviews. In: Narrative Inquiry 10, 1, S. 199–222.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lucius-Hoene, Gabriele/Deppermann, Arnulf (2004): Rekonstruktion narrativer Identität. Ein Arbeitsbuch zur Analyse narrativer Interviews. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar

  • Luhmann, Niklas (1995): Was ist Kommunikation? In: Ders.: Soziologische Aufklärung. Bd. 6: Die Soziologie und der Mensch. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. S. 113–124.Google Scholar

  • Mannheim, Karl (1980): Strukturen des Denkens. Darmstadt: Luchterhand.Google Scholar

  • Marková, Ivana (1990a): Introduction. In: Marková, I./Foppa, K. (Hg.): The dynamics of dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. S. 1–22.Google Scholar

  • Marková, Ivana (1990b): A three-step process as a unit of analysis in dialogue. In: Marková, I./Foppa, K. (Hg.): The dynamics of dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. S. 129–146.Google Scholar

  • Marková, Ivana/Foppa, Klaus (Hg.) (1991): Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

  • Marková, Ivana/Foppa, Klaus (Hg.) (1990): The dynamics of dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

  • Marková, Ivana/Graumann, Carl F./Foppa, Klaus (Hg.) (1995). Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge [u. a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar

  • Maynard. Douglas W. (1989): Perspective-display sequences in conversation. In: Western Journal of Speech Communication 53, S. 91–113.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Meyrowitz, Joshua (1986): Television and Interpersonal Behavior: Codes of Perception and Response. In: Gumpert, G. (Hg.): Inter/media. Interpersonal communication in a media world. New York: Oxford Univ. Press S. 253–272.Google Scholar

  • Meyrowitz, Joshua (1990a): Redefining the Situation: Extending Dramaturgy into a theory of social change and media effects. In: Riggins, S. H. (Hg.): Beyond Goffman: studies on communication, institution, and social interaction. Berlin [u. a.]: Mouton de Gruyter. S. 65–97.Google Scholar

  • Meyrowitz, Joshua (1990b): Using Contextual Analysis to Bridge the Study of Mediated and Unmediated Behavior. In: Ruben, B. D./Lievrouw, L. A. (Hg.): Mediation, Information and Communication. Vol. 3: Information and Behavior. New Brunswick: Transaction Press. S. 67–94.Google Scholar

  • Mondada, Lorenza (2008): Using Video for a Sequential and Multimodal Analysis of Social Interaction: Videotaping Institutional Telephone Calls [88 paragraphs]. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9, 3, Art. 39.Google Scholar

  • Mondada, Lorenza (2014): Bodies in action: multimodal analysis of walking and talking. In: Language and dialogue, 4, 3, S. 357–403.Google Scholar

  • Mondada, Lorenza (2014): Conventions for multimodal transcription. Online-Dokument (https://franz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/franz/user_upload/redaktion/Mondada_conv_multimodality.pdf; letzter Zugriff: 21.12.2015).Google Scholar

  • Ochs, Elinor (1979): Planned and unplanned discourse. In: Givón, T. (Hg.): Syntax and semantics. Vol 12: Discourse and syntax. New York, NY [u. a.]: Acad. Press. S. 51–80.Google Scholar

  • Oevermann, Ulrich et al. (1976): Beobachtungen zur Struktur der sozialisatorischen Interaktion. Theoretische und methodologische Fragen der Sozialisationsforschung. In: Lepsius, R. (Hg.): Verhandlungen d. 17. Dt. Soziologentages. Stuttgart: Enke. S. 274–295.Google Scholar

  • Pomerantz, Anita (1984): Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of prefered/disprefered turn shapes. In: Atkinson, M./Heritage, J. (Hg.): Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. S. 57–101.Google Scholar

  • Rasmussen, Tove A. (2000): Construction of Authenticity. In Hallenberger, G./Schanze, H. (Hg.): Live is Life. Mediale Inszenierungen des Authentischen. Baden-Baden: Nomos. S. 47–67.Google Scholar

  • Ribeiro, Branca Telles (1993): Framing in Psychotic Discourse. In: Tannen, D. (Hg.): The framing of discourse. Cambridge: CUP. S. 77–113.Google Scholar

  • Roberts, Felicia (2004): Speaking to and for Animals in a Veterinary Clinic: A Practice for Managing Interpersonal Interaction. In: Research on Language and Interaction, 37, 4, S. 421–446.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey (1972): On the analyzability of stories by children. In Gumperz, J. J./Hymes, D. (eds.): Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication New York: Rinehart & Winston. S. 325–45.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey/Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1979): Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In: Psathas, G. (ed.): Everyday language. New York: Center for the Study of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. S. 15–21.Google Scholar

  • Sarangi, Srikant (2015): Activity types, discourse types and role types: interactional hybridity in professional-client encounters. In: Miller, D. R./Bayley, P. (eds.): Hybridity in Systemic Functional Linguistics: Grammar, Text and Discursive Context. Sheffield: Equinox. S. 154–177.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1972): Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. In: Sudnow, D. N. (ed.): Studies in Social Interaction. New York: The Free Press, 75–119.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1996): Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: a partial sketch of a systematics. In: Fox, B. (ed.): Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. S. 437–485.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1997): Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense for Intersubjectivity in Conversation. In: American Journal of Sociology, 97, 5, S. 1295–1345.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scherer, Klaus R. (1977): Affektlaute und vokale Embleme. In Posner, R./Reinecke, H. (Hg.): Zeichenprozesse. Semiotische Forschung in den Einzelwissenschaften. Wiesbaden: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion S. 199–214.Google Scholar

  • Schieffelin, Bambi B./Ochs, Elinor (1995): Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar

  • Schmitt, Reinhold/Knöbl, Ralf (2014): Recipient Design: Zur multimodalen Repräsentation des Anderen im eigenen Verhalten. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS).Google Scholar

  • Schneider, Wolfgang Ludwig (2001): Intersubjektivitätsproduktion in Interaktion und Massenkommunikation. In: Sutter, T./Charlton, M. (Hg.): Massenkommunikation, Interaktion und soziales Handeln. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. S. 84–110.Google Scholar

  • Schober, Michael F./Brennan, Susan E. (2003): Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner. In: Graesser, A. C./Gernsbacher, M. A./Goldman, S. R. (eds.): Handbook of discourse processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. S. 123–164.Google Scholar

  • Schröder, Peter/Steger, Hugo (Hg.) (1981): Dialogforschung. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar

  • Schütz, Alfred (1974): Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

  • Schütz, Alfred/Luckmann, Thomas (1979/84): Strukturen der Lebenswelt. 2 Bde. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

  • Scott, Marvin B./Lyman, Stanford M. (1968): Accounts. In: American Sociological Review, 33, S. 46–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Selting, Magret et al. (2009): Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). In: Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 10, S. 353–402.Google Scholar

  • Shoaps, Robin A. (2002): „Pray Earnestly“: The Textual Construction of Personal Involvement in Pentecostal Prayer and Song. In: Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12, 1, S. 34–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simanowski, Roberto (2012): Textmaschinen – Kinetische Poesie – Interaktive Installation. Zum Verstehen von Kunst in digitalen Medien. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar

  • Tannen, Deborah (2004): Talking the Dog: Framing Pets as Interactional Resources in Family Discourse. In: Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 4, S. 399–420.Google Scholar

  • Thompson, John B. (1995): The media and modernity. A social theory of the media. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

  • Van Dijk, Teun A. (2014): Discourse and knowledge. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Vorderer, Peter (Hg.) (1996): Fernsehen als ‚Beziehungskiste‘: parasoziale Beziehungen und Interaktionen mit TV-Personen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Wertsch, James V. (1990): Dialogue and dialogism in a sociocultural approach to mind. In Marková, I./Foppa, K. (Hg.): The dynamics of dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. S. 62–82.Google Scholar

  • Wygotski, Lew S. (1986): Denken und Sprechen. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.Google Scholar

  • Ytreberg, Espen (2004): Formatting Participation within Broadcast Media Production. In: Media, Culture & Society, 26, 5, S. 677–692.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-12-06

Published in Print: 2016-12-01

Citation Information: Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 369–405, ISSN (Online) 1613-0626, ISSN (Print) 0301-3294, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl-2016-0021.

Export Citation

© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in